I don't know of another high-rise fire that resulted in total building collapse, but then I don't know of a similar building that was left to burn for six hours either. The situation was literally unprecedented. One shouldn't be surprised not to find similar examples.

I would add to that... a fire that burned with the heat fed by fuel.(There's a technical term for that I believe... ugh, so frustrating that I can't remember it right now.)

I never said I have the answers. In case you missed I said I have questions, and you two are simply denying and refusing to hear those questions.

I think you're refusing to hear the answers, Hasan. Let me summarize the answers I've given you so far:

There was no unusual stock trading activity, according to the 9/11 Commission. If you know differently, you'll need to be more specific.

The Israeli Prime Minister cancelled his visit after 9/11, not before.

There was no undue haste in disposing of the rubble from the buildings, and no "protocol" was violated in doing so. The cleanup from the Oklahoma City bombing was much faster, and I didn't hear accusations of cover-up.

A "perfect demolition" does not begin as a raging inferno that burns for six hours in multiple areas of the building. Moreover, the firefighters on the scene did not see a structurally sound building just waiting for the charges to detonate, as they would in a demolition. They saw a severely weakened frame that was ready to fall at any moment without the need for any intervention.The only sense in which it resembled a demolition is that the building fell down -- just as it would in the case of "total progressive collapse". I'm not sure why you find that surprising. What direction would you expect it to fall? [IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Tongue" />

I don't know of another high-rise fire that resulted in total building collapse, but then I don't know of a similar building that was left to burn for six hours either. The situation was literally unprecedented. One shouldn't be surprised not to find similar examples.

The collapse of a huge building is necessarily a noisy event. I'm not surprised that it might sound like a series of explosions. For that matter, there probably were plenty of actual explosions of fuel tanks, compressed gas cylinders, etc.

You also seem to be refusing to hear my question: given that the planes were crashed into the Twin Towers, why would the conspirators plant explosives in Building 7? What was the point in furnishing this (according to you) clear evidence that there was a conspiracy going on? Even worse, what if Building 7 hadn't caught fire? Surely they couldn't have planned exactly where burning debris from the impact would fall. Wouldn't the sudden collapse of a totally undamaged building have been a dead giveaway?

You have also failed to scientifically prove your beliefs. You remember Oklahoma City bombing, a huge bomb, fire, still the structure was still there.

I do remember the Oklahoma City bombing, but I don't recall any significant fire.

Ron,
I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements. There needs to be independent investigations into this event that brought changes to the whole world. Our freedoms and the way we live.

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing.
That does not make sense, but that's how we were told.
The rest of your answers only make sense to you, not to me. I still think that those experts and engineers do need a chance to question official theories.
I am done with you, as you and those like you have a belief and you don't like questioning your beliefs.
My questions have not been answered by you, what you did is just repeat what the official statement were. I am not interested in them, I would like to hear scientific explanations.
Hasan

39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"

You also seem to be refusing to hear my question: given that the planes were crashed into the Twin Towers, why would the conspirators plant explosives in Building 7? What was the point in furnishing this (according to you) clear evidence that there was a conspiracy going on? Even worse, what if Building 7 hadn't caught fire? Surely they couldn't have planned exactly where burning debris from the impact would fall. Wouldn't the sudden collapse of a totally undamaged building have been a dead giveaway?

Ron,
I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements. There needs to be independent investigations into this event that brought changes to the whole world. Our freedoms and the way we live.

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing.
That does not make sense, but that's how we were told.
The rest of your answers only make sense to you, not to me. I still think that those experts and engineers do need a chance to question official theories.
I am done with you, as you and those like you have a belief and you don't like questioning your beliefs.
My questions have not been answered by you, what you did is just repeat what the official statement were. I am not interested in them, I would like to hear scientific explanations.
Hasan
[/QUOTE]

Greetings Hasan,

I am having a similar conversation elsewhere.

I do think Ron raises some valid questions... those similar to ones that I would raise.

First I want to say that your comment about Saudi's not being able to learn to fly these planes is completely off base. They are more than intelligent enough. I went to college with quite a few people from the mid-east and most were studying to be engineers... a highly intelligent field. It is no far stretch for them to have been in the U.S. training to be pilots. For a very long time people have been sending their children to the U.S. from the mid-east, to get an education. It just goes to show how trusting the U.S. was prior to 9/11, content in their belief that other nations would like to emulate them, not destroy them.

There is no question about who hi-jacked those planes... all 4 of them.

As far as the collapse of the twin towers and bldg. 7...I can agree... it seems to be obvious that there was more to the collapse of the buildings in New York than merely the planes that hit the towers.

Ron, I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements.

I don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing "official" about my statements. I'm simply presenting obvious facts and common sense. If the facts and common sense happen to be on the side of the conventional wisdom, that's a reason to believe the conventional wisdom, not to dismiss it.

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing.

Oh come on, Hasan! We know where these guys learned to fly the planes, and we know that they were able to slam the planes into the buildings so it obviously wasn't that hard. You're not just ignoring common sense, you're ignoring reality.

I still want to know why the conspirators would plant bombs in Building 7 if the planes were only hitting the Towers.

Ron, I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements.

I don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing "official" about my statements. I'm simply presenting obvious facts and common sense. If the facts and common sense happen to be on the side of the conventional wisdom, that's a reason to believe the conventional wisdom, not to dismiss it.

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing.

Oh come on, Hasan! We know where these guys learned to fly the planes, and we know that they were able to slam the planes into the buildings so it obviously wasn't that hard. You're not just ignoring common sense, you're ignoring reality.

I still want to know why the conspirators would plant bombs in Building 7 if the planes were only hitting the Towers.

Ron,
there were no fact you offered that were not part of the official version of the event. There are people who question that and I see that they have some valid reasons to do so. Why there is opposition to find facts? Why they are being dismissed as "conspiracy theories"? We have not yet listened to the other side yet. How can we be sure that we have the truth. Only our refusal to hear them or dismiss them as conspiracy theorists itself is suspicious.
I you know the process of how one becomes a jet pilot let alone a passenger jet pilot, it is pretty interesting that these must be the smartest people on the planet to achieve such perfection in a very short time, while it takes a long time and a lot of sophisticated training for our pilots to achieve, to steer one of these. Your mind can fathom that, mine still questions it.
About building seven I am the one asking question, if you don;t have the answer, leave it there.
Hasan

39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"

I took flying lessons at one point. it is not inconceivable that these very intelligent men could learn to fly. I personally do not doubt their ability to learn... not at all. I elaborate in my other post.

Ron, there were no fact you offered that were not part of the official version of the event.

Facts are facts, Hasan. Why should a fact be disqualified simply because it is cited by the authorities?

Why there is opposition to find facts? Why they are being dismissed as "conspiracy theories"? We have not yet listened to the other side yet. How can we be sure that we have the truth. Only our refusal to hear them or dismiss them as conspiracy theorists itself is suspicious.

They are called "conspiracy theories" because the underlying assumption is that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people in a dozen different organizations and at various levels of authority all secretly conspired together to commit a horrendous crime that killed thousands of people. This just doesn't happen in real life. It is hard enough to find even one such cold-blooded killer. For hundreds of them to identify and contact one another, while keeping the plan secret from anyone else, is inconceivable.

I you know the process of how one becomes a jet pilot let alone a passenger jet pilot, it is pretty interesting that these must be the smartest people on the planet to achieve such perfection in a very short time, while it takes a long time and a lot of sophisticated training for our pilots to achieve, to steer one of these. Your mind can fathom that, mine still questions it.

Where are you getting this strange idea that one needs to be some kind of genius to steer a plane into a building? Takeoff and landing are the hard parts, but frankly anyone with a basic familiarity with the controls plus a couple of hours' practice on Flight Simulator could probably hit a target without much trouble. (I've played with Flight Simulator. It's not that hard, really it's not.)

About building seven I am the one asking question, if you don;t have the answer, leave it there.

Sorry, I won't accept that. If you want to convince anyone of your theory, you have to show that it is more probable than the "official" theory. You can't just pick holes in your opponent's position while totally ignoring the gaping chasms in your own. If you can't explain why on earth the conspirators would plan in advance to blow up Building 7, which wasn't even supposed to be a target of the airplanes, then I don't see how anyone could find your theory more credible than the obvious explanation.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.